For the PHOTMATIX Users............

Art Scott

Which do you prefer........

Stand alone or

PhotoShop Plugin????

kdog

Funny, haven't tried the plugin yet and forgot they even had one.
It's been a while since I looked, but even Photomatix seemed down on the plugin, like there was something you could do with the standalone program that you couldn't do with the plugin. But I forget the details. I've been using the standalone program for a couple of years and have always upgraded to the latest editions (for free I might add.)

The workflow with the standalone program seems streamlined enough. I simply multiple-select the image series in Bridge and drag them on top of the Photomatix window or icon. I suppose LR would work the same way. HDR and tone-map in Photomatix, and export as TIFF. Then open that TIFF in ACR for some fine tuning if necessary, and to double-check for blown highlights. Then post process as any other image. Not sure what plugin would buy me. But if it eliminates the intermediate TIFF output from PM, then that would NOT be a feature in my book.

Cheers,
-joel

pathfinder

That is my current workflow too, Joel.

I have not tried the Lightroom plugin from Photomatix either, but I prefer to use Adobe Camera Raw to create a Smart Object for my RAW workflow, and them use Photoshop for further editing of those image files.


I have even been thinking of not importing the RAW files into LR, but instead the tonemapped tiffs that I output from Photomatix. That would mean the RAW files would eventually not be available to process as an individual file, just the the tone mapped tiff, but I am not sure that I process a single file separately from images that I shoot in multiple frames that often yet. Still pondering.

If I would dispose of the multiple RAW files, especially the over exposed frames, I will save tons of hard drive space - I know it is cheap, but I am going to be needing 10s of Terrabytes of storage in the very near future.

Who would have ever dreamed of home computers with 10 of Gigabytes of RAM and 10s of Terrabytes of storage?

As I am beginning to understand how to process hdr files better, I am really enjoying it. I do find trying to get good results handheld, without a trypod, not very helpful, especially with very wide angle lenses. Telephotos seem to work a bit better in getting frame to frame match pixel alignment.





It is interesting to read the online arguments pro and con about hdr. If you look in the printed media world, there are hdr images everywhere. They do not have halos and the "HDR" look, but they have detail in shadows and highlights that cannot be captured any other way. I see them in Time magazine all the time. They even made the front cover of the John Deere annual report -- http://www.deere.com/en_US/ir/media/pdf/financialdata/reports/2010/2009annualreport.pdf

kdog

pathfinder wrote:

I have even been thinking of not importing the RAW files into LR, but instead the tonemapped tiffs that I output from Photomatix. That would mean the RAW files would eventually not be available to process as an individual file, just the the tone mapped tiff, but I am not sure that I process a single file separately from images that I shoot in multiple frames that often yet. Still pondering.

If I would dispose of the multiple RAW files, especially the over exposed frames, I will save tons of hard drive space

I wouldn't delete the individual RAWs. HDR tools are in their infancy. Guaranteed you'll want to reprocess at least some of your original images some day with some new tools and/or techniques.

I'm with you that HDRs are here to stay and are more pervasive than many people think. Most of the shots I post are HDRs, some of which are hand merged back with an original because I only liked some of what HDR did to an image, not the whole thing. So would that be consider an HDR or not? Who cares? I never mention when I use HDR unless somebody asks about the processing because it's just not important. It's just a tool. The question is whether the image looks good. If it doesn't, blame the photographer, not the tool. Ok, off my soapbox.

pathfinder

Good points, Joel, that I had overlooked.

The increasing capability of HDR tonemapping in the future is indeed a good reason for not discarding my RAW files. The combination of RAW filtes and tone mapped tiffs, plus final images will consume hard drive space at a phenomenal rate.

Western Digital will remain a "buy" I suspect.:D

Not disclosing that hdr was used in the processing might be looked at at "cheating" by some folks. Not me though. I support your opinion.

Ric Grupe

pathfinder wrote:

I have a complaint! These images give me vertigo.:puke

Wonderful.

pathfinder

Thanks, Ric. I appreciate the pat on the back.

Since I live in one of the fly over states that begin with "I", I think that is kind of cool really. Not every thing is cornfields where I live, afterall, despite what the coastal dwellers think!!

Could you tell them that here please? -- http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=157729